Here is me in an M2. OK. I fly a PA46, and this plane is too small for me. I would not have believed it if I didn’t actually sit in it, but the Meridian has more room up front. But you won’t hear a pilot spending $6 million for an aircraft complaining about the seat room .

For 400 knots, still, I wouldn’t mind turning with just Rudder. Sure can’t go full deflection with the yoke, though.

The Mustang is far more comfortable upfront

Exactly! Everyone says it was no big deal to do the M2 instead of continuing the Mustang line, but it was a big deal, especially for the pilot and as Mike pointed out, most M2’s are owner flown. The Mustang has the best cockpit of any small tube Citation, the loss of that nice cockpit is probably the biggest reason it was a mistake to kill the 510 line.

The fundamental observation is that there is no VLJ, very light jet, product any more. The Eclipse and Mustang were it, a new market segment. But it was unsustainable for either to keep going.

The SF 50 is not a VLJ, it lacks jet performance and experience.

This is not due to lack of demand, lots of people would like a small personal jet, but due to lack of ability to execute a sustainable design.

Mike C.

The Mustang is a very sustainable design, it sold very well for about eight years, much of those sales were 2008 -2011 when the economy was in shambles and the airplane market in general was horrible.

The fact is the Mustang handles the weight of the VLJ market, oddly it shares the demand with the TBM. It’s almost a given that anyone who hires us to buy a TBM will at least consider a Mustang. The TBM-940 is selling north of $5M so I’m sure Textron could bring back the Mustang and do well with it, especially if it had the latest and greatest adds like ESP and Autoland.

I suspect the Mustang will be easier to fly and insure as pilots age. Dirt simple. Auto land is in its future.

Here is me in an M2. OK. I fly a PA46, and this plane is too small for me. I would not have believed it if I didn’t actually sit in it, but the Meridian has more room up front. But you won’t hear a pilot spending $6 million for an aircraft complaining about the seat room .

For 400 knots, still, I wouldn’t mind turning with just Rudder. Sure can’t go full deflection with the yoke, though.

The Mustang is far more comfortable upfront

I absolutely love the CJ2+, I currently own one (as an inventory airplane), and we manage a 2008 as well. The plane is a rocket, especially down low, I think it will outclimb our CJ3+ and Excel until about 15,000 feet, then the others will take over. Acceleration is wicked fast, fully loaded the other day out of FL I kept getting level offs every 2000 feet. I'd slow to around 230-240IAS for fuel burn, and when given instructions to climb higher it was hard to keep it from overspeeding as power was applied to the climb.

I'm 6'2 and never had an issue flying the M2, the right seat was a little tighter than the left as it couldn't go back an extra click, but I agree the Mustang is very comfy as a pilot.

The price point for the capability of the Mustang is perfect, as others have said if it meets your mission there is no better plane. Very simple to fly, most of our annual maintenance at a service center has been cheaper than our TBM 700 at a service center.

I can see Textron's line of thinking, as much as I disagree with it. The step from an M2 to a CJ3+ as far as physical flying isn't extraordinary. Going from the simple Mustang to a CJ3+ will obviously require another type rating which could be a hassle for those using it as a stepping stone, and could be an overwhelming step between the 2 (the BKL CJ4 crash just upgraded from a Mustang).

Given current prices, it would be nice if they brought back the CJ2 line. Most CJ2s/2+ I've seen are corporate flown birds.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

I am 6’2 but leggy. I have heard you can remove the cabinet behind the copilot on the M2 for extra room. It is a nice plane, but definitely built with the thought of the people paying in the back. Like most cabin class aircraft. Once in place it is fine. I am a little surprised how well the SF50 sells. But I think if the Mustang were still around, and updated it would have brought quite a few pilots into the Textron fold. But the move to close the Mustang line was a gift to Cirrus Piper and Socata who now dominate turbine owner pilot new aircraft sales.

I agree, Chip. Textron should have upgraded the CJ2+, dumped the CJ1+ instead, and continued with the Mustang. There just isn't a big enough gap between the Mustang and the M2. If I ever had the need to upgrade, I'd look at a CJ3+. However, a Garminized CJ2+ would be the perfect upgrade from a Mustang. Too bad it doesn't exist.

Cost more to make than a CJ.

Selling well and being sustainable are two different things, basic economics.

Mike C.

That might be true if you consider development cost, but other than that I don't see it. When you look at a jet like that, the engines are a huge percentage of the hard cost, I don't know what Textron pays for a set of Pratt PW615F-A's, but I will guarantee you it is considerably less than what they pay for a set of Williams FJ44-1AP-21's.

I think where you are getting that from is that at the CJP conference, Ron Draper was asked (again) about bringing back the Mustang, his response was something along the lines of "we would, but it would be so expensive you guys wouldn't buy it"

I worked for a manufacturing company for many years, I understand the efficiency of building fewer types and fewer models. However, I also understand marketing, I was the national sales manager and had I applied the same logic to our inventory line, the company would not have grown as exponentially as it did. We build certain products with such a low margin that we were lucky to break even, it was about market share and owning the move-up buyer.

That might be true if you consider development cost, but other than that I don't see it.

Forgive me if I take your proclamations of what things cost with skepticism given recent statements refuted with actual evidence.

It would not surprise me at all if a pair of PW615F costs more to the OEM than FJ44-1. All the initial promises about how low cost the PW600 series was going to be to operate have not come true and they turn out to be pretty expensive to maintain due to lack of robustness. PWC has had some warranty expenses that I am sure exceeded their budgets, like burner cans not lasting even one HSI interval. The overhead for a small fleet like the Mustang is also higher.

Meanwhile, Williams has the FJ44 dialed in and gets substantial revenue from their engine programs which can offset some of the OEM cost. Williams could just give the engines away to OEMs just to get the hourly payments.

There is no VLJ market right now. The SF 50 doesn't cut it, Mustang isn't being sold, Eclipse failed, all the other entrants failed (Diamond Jet, Piper Jet, etc). The dream of a small economical personal jet remains unfulfilled. The best you can do it buy a used Mustang right now. Controller has 20 of them, pricing in the $2.0 to $2.8 M range, not exactly cheap and makes it compete with other alternatives like CJs.

Mike C.

Forgive me if I take your proclamations of what things cost with skepticism given recent statements refuted with actual evidence.

It would not surprise me at all if a pair of PW615F costs more to the OEM than FJ44-1. All the initial promises about how low cost the PW600 series was going to be to operate have not come true and they turn out to be pretty expensive to maintain due to lack of robustness. PWC has had some warranty expenses that I am sure exceeded their budgets, like burner cans not lasting even one HSI interval. The overhead for a small fleet like the Mustang is also higher.

Meanwhile, Williams has the FJ44 dialed in and gets substantial revenue from their engine programs which can offset some of the OEM cost. Williams could just give the engines away to OEMs just to get the hourly payments.

There is no VLJ market right now. The SF 50 doesn't cut it, Mustang isn't being sold, Eclipse failed, all the other entrants failed (Diamond Jet, Piper Jet, etc). The dream of a small economical personal jet remains unfulfilled. The best you can do it buy a used Mustang right now. Controller has 20 of them, pricing in the $2.0 to $2.8 M range, not exactly cheap and makes it compete with other alternatives like CJs.

Mike C.

Mike,
Using your cost-of-capital math from the "other" thread, do you think a mustang or a garminized top-of-market 501sp makes more sense for a first time turbine owner at 30,000 nm/yr?
-J

Oh this will be great!